Andrew Prutsok Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 7 hours ago, François Carlier said: Thank you, David. I quote : "The proof that Lee Oswald went to Mexico and visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City is multi-layered and multi-faceted -- HIS picture on the Cuban application, HIS signature on multiple documents (including the hotel guest register), HIS own letter to the Soviet Embassy dated Nov. 9th, Marina's testimony, Silvia Duran, the officials at the Soviet Embassy, and the witnesses on the bus. The evidence is a mile deep." (David Von Pein)" I agree with you 100%. Lee Oswald DID go to Mexico City. It's a fact. And yet, you have members of this forum who deny that and call me stupid for saying it. Talk about a topsy-turvy world !... Then there’s the incontrovertible photo evidence, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 A very brief overview of the Oswald impersonation in Mexico City in less than two minutes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 John Armstrong on Black Op Radio on the Mexico City Oswald impersonation. Just takes 5 minutes to see.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Where's "Oswald" in Mexico City? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said: Sandy, Cliff, Cory…. The only trouble letting disinfo stand without challenge is that the material on this forum is all searchable by the major engines, and probably will be for a long time. Who knows how many unsuspecting people will come across some of these threads and dive in. The ideologues are surely here to keep all this conspiracy stuff from getting out of hand—or at least keep the facts controversial. Reminds me of the cigarette wars from a few decades back. Are we to let them crap all over the truth unchallenged? Jim, by engaging them directly in fake debate you are inviting them to crap all over the truth. I suggest laying out your evidence as "contrary to the claims of cover-up artists who falsely assert etc etc." They're just here to bait us. I think if we ignore them they'll go away. I engaged in fake debate with these clowns for a couple of decades, the total effect of which just muddied the waters. Edited January 4, 2019 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said: Sandy, Cliff, Cory…. The only trouble letting disinfo stand without challenge is that the material on this forum is all searchable by the major engines, and probably will be for a long time. Who knows how many unsuspecting people will come across some of these threads and dive in. The ideologues are surely here to keep all this conspiracy stuff from getting out of hand—or at least keep the facts controversial. Reminds me of the cigarette wars from a few decades back. Are we to let them crap all over the truth unchallenged? Ladies and Gentlemen, The only trouble letting disinformation (such as the totally ludicrous Harvey-and-Lee theory) stand without challenge is that the material on this forum is all searchable by the major engines, and probably will be for a long time. Who knows how many unsuspecting people will come across some of these threads and dive in. The ideologues (i.e. the conspiracy theorists) are surely here to keep the facts controversial. Reminds me of the cigarette wars from a few decades back. Are we to let those conspiracy theorists crap all over the truth unchallenged ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Andrew Prutsok said: Then there’s the incontrovertible photo evidence, right? If you have nothing to say, then say nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 14 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: A very brief overview of the Oswald impersonation in Mexico City in less than two minutes: One simple question : can't you see the difference between "impersonation" and "mix up in the pile of photos" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said: Where's "Oswald" in Mexico City? Send me your own pictures and I'll easily find some that look different ! I remember my friend taking a picture at university when I was in my twenties in which I look smaller than a girlfriend when I was actually taller. These things happen. Or was it the CIA who altered the picture during the night ? It is easy for you to select pictures that look different. I can do that with my own pictures in ten minutes. As to the Russian embassy photo, we all know that the man in the picture is not Oswald. And the fact that the CIA showed that picture is proof that they were not trying to take part in a conspiracy or cover up. It's just a mistake. Otherwise, what you are telling us is that the CIA lied about Oswald being in Mexico City and thought that using someone else's picture would lure us into believeing that he was there ?????????????????? Are CIA agents 3-year old toddlers ? So, according to you, the CIA wanted to kill Kennedy, so they shot him and used an innocent man who happened to work nearby as a scapegoat, and then decided, for no apparent reason, to try to lure us into thinking that the scapegoat had gone to Mexico two months before, but didn't think much of showing the picture of another, bigger, stronger man instead of that of their scapegoat ? Logic, anyone ? Edited January 4, 2019 by François Carlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 13 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: Jim, by engaging them directly in fake debate you are inviting them to crap all over the truth. I suggest laying out your evidence as "contrary to the claims of cover-up artists who falsely assert etc etc." They're just here to bait us. I think if we ignore them they'll go away. I engaged in fake debate with these clowns for a couple of decades, the total effect of which just muddied the waters. As great as my contempt is for lone nutters who deny JFK's T3 back wound, my scorn is by orders of magnitude greater for CT T3 deniers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Card Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said: Jim, by engaging them directly in fake debate you are inviting them to crap all over the truth. I suggest laying out your evidence as "contrary to the claims of cover-up artists who falsely assert etc etc." They're just here to bait us. I think if we ignore them they'll go away. I engaged in fake debate with these clowns for a couple of decades, the total effect of which just muddied the waters. No truer words were ever spoken. By engaging, you're allowing them to have a stage for disinfo. When you corner them, then they don't answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hargrove Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 Just hours after JFK was killed, top FBI brass knew Oswald had been impersonated in Mexico City a few weeks earlier. Alan Belmont, the number 3 man at the FBI, wrote a 9:15 am 11/23/63 memo to Hoover's assistant and special friend Clyde Tolson which said, in part, "... this individual does not appear to be Oswald, as he looks to be older, heavier, and with more hair. Also the Agents who have talked to Oswald have listened to the tape provided by the CIA of the call allegedly made by Oswald to the Soviet Embassy, and they do not think the individual was Oswald, as his voice is different, and he spoke in broken English." That audio tape of the Oswald impersonator, naturally, disappeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 44 minutes ago, Robert Card said: No truer words were ever spoken. By engaging, you're allowing them to have a stage for disinfo. When you corner them, then they don't answer. Let me be clear David and Tracy have honestly discussed issues with me. Just ignore fc. Dont feed. Jim you prove nothing w him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, Cory Santos said: Let me be clear David and Tracy have honestly discussed issues with me. Just ignore fc. Dont feed. Jim you prove nothing w him. Back when I was engaged in fake debate as a hobby I confronted David Von Pein with the clothing evidence and in an unguarded moment he admitted the Croft photo on Elm St. showed "a little bit" of jacket elevation. To the best of my knowledge that is the only significant concession to fact he's ever made. He then proceed to declare that "a little bit" actually means a whole big bunch of clothing. DVP and the other nutters all claim there is no logical explanation for JFK's back and throat wounds other than the single bullet fraud. When it is pointed out to them that the autopsists speculated JFK was hit with high tech rounds which dissolved in the body the crazy nutter clown car erupts into fits of "silly! silly!" One flash of intellectual honesty doesn't make up for a career of disingenuous rhetoric. Edited January 5, 2019 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
François Carlier Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 I must thank most of you for proving him right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now